Cardio Does Not Burn Muscle Mass

Options
13567

Replies

  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    Options
    Have to love the people who jump in without citing any sources. Especially the ones who write "f---k" and "lol" in an attempt to add legitimacy to their point of view :)

    And scooby qualifies as a legit "source"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66boOY4xXGU

    Another guy who can't seem to follow a link. Spend more time with the books, bro:

    http://www2.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/pr_target.cfm?ID=506

    Too bad the study it references doesn't support some of the nonsense that Scooby spouts
    Remember, your body is really smart and it wont burn muscle unless you do something really stupid like running 3000 miles or doing a drastic fad diet.

    So it should be quite easy to to retain 100% of your muscle while dieting, correct?

    And here is the actual study, which has no control and used BIA to determine lbm

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/78/
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    Google Gluconeogenesis

    Thank you.

    I'm at work right now and knew I should not have opened this post haha.

    Google "cardio does not burn muscle."

    Seems we're at an impasse then :)

    Except that the word he gave you is a scientific bodily function that is explained in textbooks that pertain to fitness, nutrition, kinesiology and the like. Not a sentence someone put together.
  • JennLifts
    JennLifts Posts: 1,913 Member
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    Google Gluconeogenesis

    Thank you.

    I'm at work right now and knew I should not have opened this post haha.

    Nevermind, looks like you agree in part.

    You're only nice if someone agrees with you? You're annoying.
  • BrianSharpe
    BrianSharpe Posts: 9,248 Member
    Options
    Let's say it like this....

    Cardio burns muscle mass when there is not enough energy in the body (carbs) and all of the ATP stores have been depleted. Your body then begins to use amino acids (proteins your muscle) to convert to ATP to use for energy.

    So... yes cardio does burn muscle mass if you do so much of it with too little energy (carbs) in your body.

    You can't make a blanket statement about something like that. You will get eaten alive on this website for something like that.

    Plus, I've never seen this Scooby website before but... if he calls himself Scooby... I would have a difficult time finding him credible. Then again I have a hard time finding people with normal names credible when they just make stuff up and put it on a website....

    At what % of body fat does this start to happen? Please cite sources.

    The body doesn't work that way. It doesn't suck all the fat out before it starts converting amino acids to use as energy. the body isn't that smart... My textbook is 4 hours away from me right now or I'd scan the page for you... sorry.....

    Don't scan it, that would be a copyright violation just the title and, perhaps, the studies the textbook relies on would be helpful.

    My understanding (and I'm open to change in light of new evidence) is that in aerobic exercise the body's first choice for energy is carbs (glycogen stored in muscle & your liver) then fat and lastly lean muscle mass (given an adequate level of dietary protein)
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    Have to love the people who jump in without citing any sources. Especially the ones who write "f---k" and "lol" in an attempt to add legitimacy to their point of view :)

    What's humorous is that your source doesn't have any sources cited either. Just dictionary terminology links.

    Are you able to read and follow links, or not?

    http://www2.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/pr_target.cfm?ID=506
    "Due to the exceptional setting of this study, we could acquire huge amounts of unique data regarding how endurance running affects the body's muscle and body fat," said Uwe Schütz, M.D., a specialist in orthopedics and trauma surgery in the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology at the University Hospital of Ulm in Germany. "Much of what we have learned so far can also be applied to the average runner."

    I've officially seen it all. Nobody is biting so now he's trolling himself. Nothing to see here folks, moved along....
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    Google Gluconeogenesis

    Thank you.

    I'm at work right now and knew I should not have opened this post haha.

    Nevermind, looks like you agree in part.

    I never completely disagreed with you in the first place. I am just saying it's easier to begin to burn muscle mass than you're trying to say it is. It is something that has been known and studied for a long time and your studies aren't backing up what you're saying with scientific evidence.
  • drmerc
    drmerc Posts: 2,603 Member
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    But when I ask you for a source you tell me to google it
  • chivalryder
    chivalryder Posts: 4,391 Member
    Options
    gluconeogenesis [gloo″ko-ne″o-jen´ĕ-sis]
    the synthesis of glucose from noncarbohydrate sources, such as amino acids and glycerol. It occurs primarily in the liver and kidneys whenever the supply of carbohydrates is insufficient to meet the body's energy needs. Gluconeogenesis is stimulated by cortisol and other glucocorticoids and by the thyroid hormone thyroxine. Formerly called glyconeogenesis.

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gluconeogenesis

    "Gluconeogenesis is the process of synthesizing glucose from non-carbohydrate sources. The starting point of gluconeogenesis is pyruvic acid, although oxaloacetic acid and dihydroxyacetone phosphate also provide entry points. Lactic acid, some amino acids from protein and glycerol from fat can be converted into glucose."

    http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/604glycogenesis.html

    604gluconeogenesis.gif

    This is what happens when you do cardio without eating enough carbohydrates to supply your body with enough energy. Also, your body does not entirely use the carbohydrates as energy. This will cause your body to eat your muscles while doing cardio activities.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    Yes I'm laughing my aZZ off.

    Bro, cardio doesn't burn muscle!

    I don't know why people would dare to argue with a guy that wears his sunglasses in the bar. Silly, silly people.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    Do heals crit?

    gotta spec for crits bro and try to up your crit chance with gears
  • ZeroWoIf
    ZeroWoIf Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Yes I'm laughing my aZZ off.

    Bro, cardio doesn't burn muscle!

    I don't know why people would dare to argue with a guy that wears his sunglasses in the bar. Silly, silly people.

    231306bac2db520ae60aa432237655c0e4f9c93c.png
  • Jynus
    Jynus Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    I made the point before, but I'm still baffled that people feel the need to argue this. If you're in caloric deficit your body will be more likely to shed tissue that you're not using as a priority. this it.. /thread. There is no debate on this.

    So what does it mean?
    If you do no resistance training that uses type II fibre while in caloric deficit, you will lose type II fibre.

    If you do resistance training that uses all type II fibre while in caloric deficit, you'll retain more type II fibre than not exercising.

    cardio is relatively independent of this. It's just mentioned because FAR too many people think that cardio is the only thing, or best thing to do for fat loss, so thats all they do for exercise, while not realizing they may be hindering their results.

    As for the study on the front page, when you test people who have done thousands of miles of long distance running already, i'm not surprised they don't lose any muscle mass after running another thousand. They have already lost all they are going to lose by that point... big shocker they don't see much further change.
  • Cristofori44
    Cristofori44 Posts: 201
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    Google Gluconeogenesis

    Thank you.

    I'm at work right now and knew I should not have opened this post haha.

    Nevermind, looks like you agree in part.

    I never completely disagreed with you in the first place. I am just saying it's easier to begin to burn muscle mass than you're trying to say it is. It is something that has been known and studied for a long time and your studies aren't backing up what you're saying with scientific evidence.

    Sure, well tell me how easier it is. It seems you have to do a heck of a lot of cardio to burn muscle mass given adequate caloric and protein intake. My understanding is that consuming less than 20 percent TDEE could result in muscle mass loss, and running dozens of miles a day could do that too.

    There's an academic side to the argument and a practical side. For the practical side, my understanding is that, for the vast majority of people on here, a 500-1,000 net calorie deficit with adequate protein intake, plus 45 minutes of cardio five times a week isn't going to burn muscle mass. There are people on this board very afraid of 30-45 minutes of cardio precisely for what I think are severe outlier situations in which cardio might burn muscle mass.

    But, correct me if I'm wrong and that a 3 or 4-mile run a few times a week is burning through muscles? My situation, and what I've found, is the exact opposite.
  • Determinednoob
    Determinednoob Posts: 2,001 Member
    Options
    Yes I'm laughing my aZZ off.

    Bro, cardio doesn't burn muscle!

    I don't know why people would dare to argue with a guy that wears his sunglasses in the bar. Silly, silly people.

    231306bac2db520ae60aa432237655c0e4f9c93c.png

    i have to wonder if you got my meaning
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Let's say it like this....

    Cardio burns muscle mass when there is not enough energy in the body (carbs) and all of the ATP stores have been depleted. Your body then begins to use amino acids (proteins your muscle) to convert to ATP to use for energy.

    So... yes cardio does burn muscle mass if you do so much of it with too little energy (carbs) in your body.

    You can't make a blanket statement about something like that. You will get eaten alive on this website for something like that.

    Plus, I've never seen this Scooby website before but... if he calls himself Scooby... I would have a difficult time finding him credible. Then again I have a hard time finding people with normal names credible when they just make stuff up and put it on a website....

    At what % of body fat does this start to happen? Please cite sources.

    The body doesn't work that way. It doesn't suck all the fat out before it starts converting amino acids to use as energy. the body isn't that smart... My textbook is 4 hours away from me right now or I'd scan the page for you... sorry.....

    Don't scan it, that would be a copyright violation just the title and, perhaps, the studies the textbook relies on would be helpful.

    My understanding (and I'm open to change in light of new evidence) is that in aerobic exercise the body's first choice for energy is carbs (glycogen stored in muscle & your liver) then fat and lastly lean muscle mass (given an adequate level of dietary protein)

    If this is how it works then how would anyone ever lose fat? The glyogen that your body stores is also for your brain, b/c that is what your brain runs on. Eventually your body starts to shut down the use of glycogen as energy because it wants to retain as much as possible for your brain once it starts getting low. Therefore, it will not completely exhaust it's glycogen stores before it begins using other things as energy. I'm sorry but that's the best I can do at work with no textbook for references. but you can begin to look that up yourself if you'd like.
  • Plates559
    Plates559 Posts: 869 Member
    Options
    Cardio doesn't kill gains, skateboard squats kills gains

    >tfw scooby is god
  • ItsCasey
    ItsCasey Posts: 4,022 Member
    Options
    Cardio absolutely burns muscle mass when done in excess (i.e. when you're creating a huge caloric deficit over a given period of time), when done without strength training, when done without adequate protein, etc. By contrast, when you do limited amounts of it (in relation to how much you eat), when you supplement with weight training, and when you eat enough protein, you don't have to worry about it.
  • Jynus
    Jynus Posts: 519 Member
    Options
    Sure, well tell me how easier it is. It seems you have to do a heck of a lot of cardio to burn muscle mass given adequate caloric and protein intake. My understanding is that consuming less than 20 percent TDEE could result in muscle mass loss, and running dozens of miles a day could do that too.

    There's an academic side to the argument and a practical side. For the practical side, my understanding is that, for the vast majority of people on here, a 500-1,000 net calorie deficit with adequate protein intake, plus 45 minutes of cardio five times a week isn't going to burn muscle mass. There are people on this board very afraid of 30-45 minutes of cardio precisely for what I think are severe outlier situations in which cardio might burn muscle mass.

    But, correct me if I'm wrong and tat a 3 or 4-mile run a few times a week is burning through muscles? My situation, and what I've found, is the exact opposite.
    Are you doing resistance training while you're in caloric deficit too? if you are, you're fine. If you're not, you'll lose a lot more lean mass. is this really so hard to understand?
  • wareagle8706
    wareagle8706 Posts: 1,090 Member
    Options
    Just have to love the people who refute the assertion and question the sources without providing any sources of their own

    Google Gluconeogenesis

    Thank you.

    I'm at work right now and knew I should not have opened this post haha.

    Nevermind, looks like you agree in part.

    I never completely disagreed with you in the first place. I am just saying it's easier to begin to burn muscle mass than you're trying to say it is. It is something that has been known and studied for a long time and your studies aren't backing up what you're saying with scientific evidence.

    Sure, well tell me how easier it is. It seems you have to do a heck of a lot of cardio to burn muscle mass given adequate caloric and protein intake. My understanding is that consuming less than 20 percent TDEE could result in muscle mass loss, and running dozens of miles a day could do that too.

    There's an academic side to the argument and a practical side. For the practical side, my understanding is that, for the vast majority of people on here, a 500-1,000 net calorie deficit with adequate protein intake, plus 45 minutes of cardio five times a week isn't going to burn muscle mass. There are people on this board very afraid of 30-45 minutes of cardio precisely for what I think are severe outlier situations in which cardio might burn muscle mass.

    But, correct me if I'm wrong and that a 3 or 4-mile run a few times a week is burning through muscles? My situation, and what I've found, is the exact opposite.

    This will be my last post on here.

    If you go back and read everything I said I told you why your body starts to burn muscle mass - which was that your body has used all of it's carbs and is now moving to amino acids. You keep saying "with adequate caloric and protein intake."

    First, protein itnake is not near as important than carb intake as carbs are what your body run off of and your body is very inefficient at using protein as engery. Second, everything I've said has nothing to do with people who are eating a balanced diet with enough energy to not use protein as an energy source. So why are you arguing with me?

    Lastly, I don't think you can place numbers, even approximate numbers, on this because every SINGLE body out there is completely different. So, you should probably stop throwing around calorie deficit numbers for the general population.

    Have a good rest of the week.
  • ZeroWoIf
    ZeroWoIf Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Scooby is god.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories